Allahabad High Court
Vinay Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 4 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:194487
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37321 of 2025
Vinay Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Mohit Kumar Singh, Sujata Choudhary
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 81
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. The instructions received by the learned A.G.A. is taken on record.
2. Heard Ms. Sujata Choudhary, learned counsel for the accused-applicant, Ms. Neha Khan, learned advocate, holding the brief appeared for the opposite party no.2 (High Court Legal Services Committee) and perused the record.
3. The instant application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been moved with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the Child Welfare Committee, District Meerut in pursuance to Case Crime No.233 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 61(2), 352, 64(1), 351(3) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Rohta, District Meerut.
4. This Court by previous order dated 29.10.2025 has called for the report of District Magistrate, Meerut in respect to the recording of statement of the girl through video conferencing. The relevant paragraphs are reiterated underneath:-
"2. The application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. moved to assail the order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the opposite party no.2 (Child Welfare Committee, District Meerut). The learned counsel has submitted that the applicant is the husband of the girl, who is incarcerated in Rajkiya Bal Grih (Balika), opposite party no.4. On previous application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. No.24078 of 2025 (Vinay Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and three others), there was a specific direction to opposite party no.2 (Child Welfare Committee, District Meerut) to decide the application of applicant dated 03.06.2025 within two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order in the light of judgment passed by this Court in Sonu Paswan Vs. State of U.P. and another 2013 (83) ACC 1 (Allahabad-Lucknow Bench), wherein it is held that the guardian of minor married daughter would be her husband. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned order, wherein the application has been rejected merely on the ground that there is no specific mention that the girl wants to go along with the applicant. On the flip side, it is mentioned in paragraph no.30 of the application that the Child Welfare Committee, Meerut had illegally construed the statement of the girl taken through video conferencing, who has mentioned in clear words that she wants to go along with her husband. She further submits that a baby boy was born in the first week of August in the year 2025. The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the deposition of the girl recorded before the Special Court (POCSO Act) Meerut, on 22.05.2025, wherein she has made specific mention about the marriage with the applicant and also stated that she was pregnant and would like to reside along with her husband. Hence, seeks intervention of this Court.
5. The opposite party no.2 shall specifically state about the above allegation of incorrect withholding of fact regarding the statement made by the girl through video conferencing.
6. Registrar (Compliance) shall send a copy of this order to opposite party no.2 (Child Welfare Committee, District Meerut) and District Magistrate, Meerut for ensuring that true and correct report regarding statement of the girl recorded through video conferencing, be placed before this Court.
9. In case of non-compliance of this order, the District Magistrate, Meerut shall personally present before this Court at 10:00 a.m. "
5. The present application has been moved by the accused-applicant for the custody of his wife and newly born child and to quash the impugned order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the Child Welfare Committee, Meerut.
6. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards previous order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Application u/s 528 B.N.S.S. No.24078 of 2025 (Vinay Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and three others), wherein the court has issued direction to Child Welfare Committee, Meerut to decide the application of the applicant within two weeks in conformity to the judgment passed in Sonu Paswan Vs. State of U.P. and another 2013 (83) ACC 1 (Allahabad-Lucknow Bench).
7. The learned counsel has relied on paragraph nos.18, 19, 21, 22, 23 and 26 of the aforesaid judgment. Reiterated underneath:-
"18. Under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (in short 'Act of 1956'), in case of a married girl the husband would be a guardian. For the said purpose exact reference needs to be made to section 6.
"Section 6: Natural guardians of a Hindu minor
The natural guardian of a Hindu minor, in respect of the minor's person as well as in respect of the minor's property (excluding his or her undivided interest in joint family property), are?
(a) in the case of a boy or unmarried girl-the father, and after him, the mother, provided that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother;
(b) in case of illegitimate boy or an illegitimate unmarried girl-the mother, and after her, the father;
(c) in the case of married girl-the husband:
PROVIDED that no persons shall be entitled to act as the natural guardian of a minor under the provisions of this section?
(a) If he has ceased to be a Hindu, or
(b) If he has completely and finally renounced the world becoming a hermit (vanaprastha) or an ascetic (yati or sanyasi)
Explanation?In this section, the expression "father" and "mother" do not include a step-father and a step-mother."
19. Perusal of Clause (c) of section 6 extracted above shows that natural guardian of a Hindu minor in respect of minor's person as well as in respect of minor's property, in case of a married girl, would be her husband.
21. Even if it is considered that Rekha Devi is a minor, her marriage is not void ab initio under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act.
22. The marriage would be voidable under the Act of 2006, only if Rekha Devi files a petition for that purpose. In the case in hand, however, Rekha Devi states that she got married to Sonu Paswan, i.e. the petitioner, and wants to live with him in her matrimonial home. The marriage is not void under section 12 of the Act of 2006 in so much as the conditions stipulated in the said provision are not existence in this case.
23. Under section 21 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, a minor can act as a guardian of his own wife or child. Under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Clause 'C' of section 6, in the case of married girl, the husband would be the guardian.
26. This Court further records that it is not in the welfare of a female to keep her in Nari Niketan for prolonged period, particularly when she wants to join the company or remain in the custody of her husband, who would be the natural guardian, in context of law. In such circumstances, order passed by the In-charge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur, is rendered illegal and not warranted under Law."
8. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has made specific observation that there is no welfare of a female to keep her in Nari Niketan for a prolonged period, particularly when she wants to join the company or remain in the custody of her husband, who would be the natural guardian in context of law. Learned counsel has further drawn the attention of this Court towards the impugned order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the Child Welfare Committee, District Meerut, wherein there is specific observation made by the Committee in respect to the consent of the victim. The observation is reiterated underneath:-
" ?????? ??? ??????? ?????? (Y) ?? ??????????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?????? (Y) ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?????? (Y) ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ????????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???"
9. The basis of rejection of application, is the statement of victim. There is nothing on record to show that how this statement has been inferred by the Committee. Though the report submitted before this Court by learned A.G.A. specifically mentioned that there was no recording of statement of the victim through video conferencing, who at that particular time was at Rajkiya Bal Grih (Balika), Sector 62, Gautam Buddh Nagar. This shows the callous approach taken by the four members of the Child Welfare Committee in passing the order considering the liberty of a girl and her child. Such type of observation is deprecated.
10. The learned counsel has further drawn the attention of this Court towards the statement of victim recorded on 22.05.2025 before the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Meerut in Case No.294 of 2025 (State Vs. Vinay Kumar), under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) I.P.C. and Section 5J(II)6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Rohta, District Meerut, wherein the victim herself has stated that she wants to go with her husband. The deposition given by the victim is reiterated underneath:-
"........????? ?????? 06.01.2025 ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?????? 07.01.2025 ?? ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???, ?? ???????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????-???? ? ??? ?? ???? ? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???........"
11. This statement of victim precedes the order passed by the opposite party no.2 (Child Welfare Committee). There is no occasion with the Child Welfare Committee to infer that the victim does not want to go with accused-applicant. The further observation made by the opposite party no.2 that it will effect the merit of the case was also not the correct view because by that time, the witness was already examined before the Court.
12. In such, facts and circumstances, the order dated 14.08.2025, is quashed.
13. The girl shall be given in custody of the applicant forthwith.
14. The District Magistrate, Meerut, the Child Welfare Committee, District Meerut and Secretary District, legal Services Authority, Meerut shall ensure that the order shall be complied within three days. 15. The application is allowed accordingly.
(Avnish Saxena,J.)
November 4, 2025
Shivangi
